Let’s Give Mitchell Some Answers
I’d like to draw from yesterday’s comments for today, as I know not everyone finds comments enthralling, particularly if they’re not personally involved.
On "On the Two Prongs of Welfare Reform Consideration" (refresher: 1-is it really a reform; and 2-is it an incremental step toward not using animals at all), Mitchell writes:
Thanks for posting this, it helps me begin to understand where the abolitionists are coming from.
My thoughts on your two criteria. First, is it really a reform? That I can certainly agree with. The reform has to make things better for animals or why should we expend effort backing it? But I think we are a little further apart on what make a reform a reform. I agree that the fate of male chicks is a travesty and needs to stop. But I am having trouble seeing why that means we can’t make things better for the laying hens right now.
The point about banning ‘downer’ cattle from the food supply, you’re absolutely right. That’s not any sort of reform.
Your second point, does this move us toward eliminating animal use? Again, I certainly agree with the broad sentiment but we appear to differ on some of the details. Part of what getting rules and laws passed involves is education. If we can show people just what is being done to the animal that is the piece of veal on their plate, we can encourage to stop eating it. If we can force the veal producers to come forward and admit what goes on, we’re a step closer to getting it stopped.
Anyway, I would be interested to hear your thoughts and those of your commenters. It may well be that I need to expand my thinking some more.
And I would definitely like to hear of some good charities.
First, I’d say that the reason I pointed to the Peaceful Prairie campaign is that it demonstrates that hens kept in cage-free facilities are often not substantially better off than battery hens (hence, "Can you tell the difference?). So the much-touted reform of changing the way they are kept doesn’t appear to help them, and let’s not forget that people are paying a premium for this different type of captivity and abuse, and they’re feeling mighty good about themselves. Now, most people probably have no idea that "humane" labels and cage-free operations aren’t what they think they are (it’s called marketing), and unless we educate them they never will know, as everything they are told–and are quick to believe–says otherwise.
Outside of actual reforms there are of course small farms where chickens and cows and pigs run around. They’re not free, as they cannot leave, and the female mammals will be artificially inseminated, and every animal will probably be slaughtered, but I’d say it is true that they have better lives than animals on large farms. However, I don’t believe in keeping animals for your own gain and I don’t believe there is such a thing as humane slaughter, and I don’t believe that there is a way to "produce" animal products that doesn’t involve infringement on their rights to their own bodies and their own natural lives. Furthermore, I know we don’t need to eat animal flesh or menstrual excretions or mammary secretions in order to survive. Given all that, the fact that there’s a farm a couple of miles away where animals run around prior to slaughter doesn’t really thrill me. If you must know, it gives me creepy chills.
But that’s me.
As far as education goes, I believe that nearly all Animal Person readers will agree that vegan education is a priority. How it’s done has less agreement and there’s nothing wrong with that. My doctorate was essentially a study of learning how to learn and teaching how to teach, using our learning of language as a model. What all good educators know is that we all have multiple intelligences and varying learning styles. Not everyone immediately integrates the information you present verbally. Some people respond faster and better to pictures. Some are more auditory.
The debate around vegan education usually centers on images. There was a time when I was anti-image, as I wanted everyone to be able to grasp the concept of rights–the concept that we have no right to use animals for our own purposes. But that’s an intellectual argument that many people simply don’t respond to. If, however, you show them images of the animals they use in their daily lives, they will respond emotionally, and that opening of their heart may lead to an opening of their mind regarding their complicity in the brutal massacre of billions of sentient nonhumans each year.
And speaking of brutal, there’s also a debate about the level of gore that is desirable when showing someone what they’re responsible for when they eat or buy shoes or cosmetics. I prefer not to bombard someone with grisly images, mostly because I have the ability to turn off and not allow images to affect me. And if I have that ability (that I’ve developed for the purposes of mental and emotional survival), I assume others have it, as well. For me, less is more. In addition, focusing on gruesome images keeps the conversation about welfare and might–might–make it difficult to transition to the notion that there’s no such thing as humane farming. I think gory images do have a place, and we should be careful when using them and they should be a part of a presentation of the idea that we shouldn’t be using animals, not that we should be regulating how we use them.
Finally, with regard to veal, "what goes on" is horrible, yes, but for me it’s not that different from the "production" of any other animal product in that the requirements are: disrespect, captivity, various levels of physical discomfort and deprivation, mental anguish and of course, slaughter. I find it impossible to concoct a way from cow to veal without myriad forms of cruelty (as use is cruel). However, marketers of animal flesh will always find a way to repackage what they do in order to grab market share they’ve lost due to bad press for whatever reason. And people who turn calves into veal have done exactly that, and veal is no longer taboo. That’s my evidence that welfare reforms don’t lead to abolition.
Enough from me.
Anyone else want to respond to Mitchell with their thoughts?
I have two recent essays on vegan education (see the vegan education label on my blog) at Unpopular Vegan Essays which adress some of the problems with welfare reform as a possible means to abolition. I will be posting another essay on the same topic tomorrow.
I recommend reading more about the abolitionist approach for those who are interested. Like suggesting that people go vegan, suggesting that they go abolitionist is not something most people (vegans included) can generally read a few Web comments and overcome the widely accepted conventional opinion that welfare reform is the big answer to everything animal. People need to be willing to read abolitionist writing and listen to abolitionists with an open mind. Just like with anything, we can provide the info, but we cannot make people understand or accept it.
My thoughts are currently shaped by PeTA’s latest “victory” in getting KFC Canada to send chickens into gas chambers.
***First, is it really a reform? That I can certainly agree with. The reform has to make things better for animals or why should we expend effort backing it? But I think we are a little further apart on what make a reform a reform. I agree that the fate of male chicks is a travesty and needs to stop. But I am having trouble seeing why that means we can't make things better for the laying hens right now.***
Two issues here I think. The first and most obvious is that getting people to adopt veganism “makes things better” for male and female chicks. The second is the idea of expending effort, which is never only what happens. Typically, we expend time, effort AND money, all of which we need to think where they are best expended.
PeTA are currently claiming to have made things “very much better” for the chickens lined up to be gassed. However, given the time (5 years), effort and money they have spent on this campaign, I ask what have they got. Problem is, it is not a straightforward matter to know how to evaluate something that PeTA nevertheless claim is “much better” for chickens.
Their case for the CAK (controlled-atmosphere killing) does not seem particularly strong. For example, they have produced a video which they claim to be the case for CAK. However, the majority of the film is taken up critiquing the old system CAK is designed to replace. There is no footage of chickens being gassed. (Similarly, when the HSUS and people like Erik Marcus were heavily promoting the notion of cage-free, I wondered why they only had one picture of cage-free facilities in their propaganda). Surely, if these new use and killing systems are “much better”, one would expect them to show us the details.
PeTA say that CAK gently puts chickens to sleep – and they note the endorsement of CAK by animal welfare experts such as Temple Grandin. However, it is not immediately obvious to what extent Grandin et al have seen these systems in commercial use (and we all know the effect of having observers filming procedures). There are other reports about mass gassing – and a little European history on the matter – and it is not pleasant. I imagine the last thing PeTA want is their members actually seeing what they have been told is “much better” for chickens.
***Your second point, does this move us toward eliminating animal use? Again, I certainly agree with the broad sentiment but we appear to differ on some of the details. Part of what getting rules and laws passed involves is education. If we can show people just what is being done to the animal that is the piece of veal on their plate, we can encourage to stop eating it. If we can force the veal producers to come forward and admit what goes on, we're a step closer to getting it stopped.***
These points raise fundamental issues for me. As a matter of principle – but also in terms of what works best – we have to be careful about the notion of using law to bring about animal rights. In fact, only widespread cultural transformation will do that. Take, for example, the recent laws that “banned” hunting with dogs in England, Wales and Scotland. Currently hunters are using every loophole they can find in order to continue hunting. Thing is – they still want to hunt: in terms of speciesist attitudes, the “hunt bans” have done nothing. Those who favour using law have the same or similar attitude as the ALF – that people have to be forced to comply with our values; that many will not stop violating animals’ rights voluntarily, so we have to act against their interests and make them do something that they do not want to do. This is not good in terms of long-term change.
However, on the other hand, it is regarded as naïve in the extreme to think that everyone (or many people) can be talked out of the rights violations they benefit and profit from. We only have to look at the comments following animal-related news stories on the net to see how deeply embedded cultural speciesism is. I conclude that we are just beginning in our quest to transform attitudes about human-nonhuman relations. I am convinced that vegan education is extremely important and I expect that many will advocate the taking of short-term measures like using laws and letter bombs to force people away from using animal property.
For a much more thorough treatment of this topic, Dan's Vegan Education essays are at: http://unpopularveganessays.blogspot.com/